Hawley condemns Progressives' bill to parole more hardened criminals
Assemblyman Steve Hawley (R,C,I-Batavia) has strongly condemned the Assembly Majority’s proposal (A.4319) to automatically consider parole of prisoners once they turn 55 years old, regardless of their crimes or imposed sentence.
“Making time in prison easier has become the platform of New York’s big-city progressive politicians,” Hawley said. “First it was free computer tablets and pay raises for inmates, then it was pardons and voting rights for violent felons as they go on parole and now shorter sentences no matter how horrific the crime – abhorrent.
"If adopted, this bill could result in violent criminals being released from prison before their prison sentence is fully served. Judith Clark and Herman Bell living among us, one who murdered police officers and another who helped murder police officers, would become the new normal in New York.”
Hawley has opposed many of the soft on crime measures enacted in Albany this legislative session. Chief among these is the closure of three state prisons, terminating hundreds of jobs and jeopardizing the safety of constituents.
“This is an outrageous proposal that jeopardizes the public at large and insults crime victims across the state. I will do everything in my power to not allow New York to become a hotbed for progressive social experiments and I am committed to continuing my fight against these dangerous proposals,” Hawley concluded.
Another sour grapes press release from Assemblymember Hawley. Does anything he support ever get passed? He has to be considered the most ineffective Legislator in the state! The voters send him to Albany to work to improve GLOW. Sadly, it seems that the only thing he is ever really successful at is getting his grandstanding press releases published on TheBatavian. What a waste of tax payer money!
Scott, we know you don't like Hawley, fine that's OK.. But do you support the things he is against? Do you support the early release of convicted felons due to just reaching age 55? Do you support the possible closing of the Boy Scout rifle ranges or High School shooting sports? Drivers licenses for illegals?
It's a sour cup of ale with you Scott, and it is apparent from your previous posts you despise Steve Hawley. That's fine with me. It is political and we all get it. Steve could discover the mythical "Fountain of Youth" (It is located near the Bitter Chalice of Trump Russian collusion delusion, that many still imbibe) Steve would pass out the water for free, You'd continue to criticize Steve for overpopulating the planet with youthful healthy people who increase greenhouse gases through flatulence. Add this flatulence with cow farts, and the world will end in 6 years instead of 12.
Rich, you kill me!!!
Reading the bill, it sounds like rather than a hearing for parole taking place every 2 years, this bill is making those hearings mandatory at age 55. It's still up to a committee to decide whether the person is released, though. I don't understand the point of the bill. If hearings come up every 2 years regardless, then I have two questions:
1) Why even propose the bill? Either inmates will have a hearing for parole at age 53, 55, 57, etc., or they'll have a hearing at age 52, 54, 56, 58,. etc. Why does the age of 55 matter, then? This seems to be a pointless Democrat bill that doesn't actually do anything and is a waste of time just to appeal to their base.
2) If there is a hearing every 2 years, then why are people so angry that there is now a mandatory hearing at age 55? This seems to be Republicans yelling at Democrats just to yell at Democrats over a pointless bill that doesn't actually change anything of significance (is a year that big of a deal if hearings come up at age 54 and 56?).
Am I misunderstanding what the bill is saying? I copied the meat of the bill below.
1 Section 1. Section 259-c of the executive law is amended by adding a
2 new subdivision 18 to read as follows:
3 18. notwithstanding any other section of the law, where a person serv-
4 ing a sentence of incarceration has served at least fifteen years of a
5 determinate or indeterminate sentence and has reached the age of fifty-
6 five or greater, the board shall conduct a hearing pursuant to this
7 section and section two hundred fifty nine-i of this article to deter-
8 mine whether such person should be released to community supervision. If
9 the board determines that there is a reasonable probability that, if
10 such person is released, he or she will live and remain at liberty with-
11 out violating the law and that his or her release is not incompatible
12 with the welfare of society, then the board shall release the person to
13 community supervision even if the person has not served the minimum
14 sentence imposed by the judge. If release to community supervision is
15 not granted, the inmate shall be informed in writing within two weeks of
16 such appearance of the factors and reasons for the denial of such
17 release and the board shall specify a date not more than twenty-four
18 months from such determination for reconsideration, and the procedures
19 to be followed upon reconsideration shall be the same. If release to
20 community supervision is granted, the board shall set release conditions
21 and the provisions of this section shall otherwise apply as though the
22 inmate was released after the completion of his or her minimum sentence.
23 § 2. This act shall take effect on the one hundred eightieth day after
24 it shall have become a law.
It looks like an attempt to save money spent on the health of prisoners as they age.
Daniel, you're right., When inmates are released who have serious medical issues, the county they end up in has to pay under Medicaid. It shifts the convicts cost from the State to others. It's all about money..
Well John; maybe if the environment that produced the criminal has more direct, out of pocket awareness of the many faceted costs incurred by a lack of rehabilitation, a fire will be lit
Maybe Scott just wants to "piss on" (not my or Scott's choice of words)his embeddedness, and the same for those of similar stature.
Sam, thanks for your post. I believe you are correct, it is just a case of Democrats pandering to their active base, and an issue that Republicans want to yell at Democrats about to pander to their base. Very well said by you.
John, I think you are mistaken. The bill does not grant release at age 55, it just brings it up for consideration. And I really think that with all the current news about The Boy Scouts, you could have picked a better example to make reference to. I think the Boy Scouts playing with their guns has already caused them enough issues.